JUAN PONCE ENRILE, Petitioner, vs.

SANDIGANBAYAN (THIRD
DIVISION), AND PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondents.

G.R. No. 213847 dated August 18, 2015

Ponente: Justice Lucas P. Bersamin

EN BANC

FACTS:
On June 5, 2014, the Office of the Ombudsman charged petitioner Enrile and
several others with plunder in the Sandiganbayan on the basis of their purported
involvement in the diversion and misuse of appropriations under the Priority
Development Assistance Fund (PDAF).
On June 10, 2014 and June 16, 2014, petitioner filed his Omnibus Motion and
Supplemental Opposition praying, among others, that he be allowed to post bail
should probable cause be found against him.
On July 3, 2014, after the motions were heard, Sandiganbayan issued its
resolution denying Enriles motion, particularly on the matter of bail, on the
ground of its prematurity considering that Enrile had not yet then voluntarily
surrendered or been placed under the custody of the law.
On the same day that the warrant for his arrest was issued, Enrile voluntarily
surrendered to Director Benjamin Magalong of the Criminal Investigation and
Detection Group (CIDG) in Camp Crame, Quezon City, and was later on confined
at the Philippine National Police (PNP) General Hospital following his medical
examination.
Thereafter, Enrile filed his Motion for Detention at the PNP General Hospital, and
his Motion to Fix Bail, both dated July 7, 2014, which were heard by the
Sandiganbayan on July 8, 2014. In support of the motions, Enrile argued that he
should be allowed to post bail because: (a) the Prosecution had not yet
established that the evidence of his guilt was strong; (b) although he was
charged with plunder, the penalty as to him would only be reclusion temporal, not
reclusion perpetua; and (c) he was not a flight risk, and his age and physical
condition must further be seriously considered.
Sandiganbayan issued two resolutions denying petitioners Motion to Fix Bail and
Motion for Reconsideration dated July 14, 2014 and August 8, 2014, respectively.
Petitioner then filed a Petition for Certiorari to assail and annul the resolutions
issued by the Sandiganbayan before the Supreme Court.
Enrile claims that before judgment of conviction, an accused is entitled to bail as
matter of right; that it is the duty and burden of the Prosecution to show clearly
and conclusively that Enrile comes under the exception and cannot be excluded
from enjoying the right to bail; that the Prosecution has failed to establish that
Enrile, if convicted of plunder, is punishable by reclusion perpetua considering
the presence of two mitigating circumstances his age and his voluntary
surrender; that the Prosecution has not come forward with proof showing that his
guilt for the crime of plunder is strong; and that he should not be considered a
flight risk taking into account that he is already over the age of 90, his medical
condition, and his social standing.

ISSUE #1: Whether bail may be granted as a matter of right or of discretion.

HELD # 1:
The right to bail is expressly afforded by Section 13, Article III (Bill of Rights) of the
Constitution, viz.:

x x x All persons, except those charged with offenses punishable by reclusion perpetua
when evidence of guilt is strong, shall, before conviction, be bailable by sufficient
sureties, or be released on recognizance as may be provided by law. The right to bail
shall not be impaired even when the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is
suspended. Excessive bail shall not be required.

This constitutional provision is repeated in Section 7, Rule 114 of the Rules of Court, as
follows:

Section 7. Capital offense or an offense punishable by reclusion perpetua or life

imprisonment, not bailable. No person charged with a capital offense, or an offense
punishable by reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, shall be admitted to bail when
evidence of guilt is strong, regardless of the stage of the criminal prosecution.

A capital offense in the context of the rule refers to an offense that, under the law
existing at the time of its commission and the application for admission to bail, may be
punished with death.

The general rule is, therefore, that any person, before being convicted of any criminal
offense, shall be bailable, unless he is charged with a capital offense, or with an offense
punishable with reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, and the evidence of his guilt is
strong. Hence, from the moment he is placed under arrest, or is detained or restrained
by the officers of the law, he can claim the guarantee of his provisional liberty under the
Bill of Rights, and he retains his right to bail unless he is charged with a capital offense,
or with an offense punishable with reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, and the
evidence of his guilt is strong. Once it has been established that the evidence of guilt is
strong, no right to bail shall be recognized.

As a result, all criminal cases within the competence of the Metropolitan Trial Court,
Municipal Trial Court, Municipal Trial Court in Cities, or Municipal Circuit Trial Court are
bailable as matter of right because these courts have no jurisdiction to try capital
offenses, or offenses punishable with reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment. Likewise,
bail is a matter of right prior to conviction by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) for any
offense not punishable by death, reclusion perpetua , or life imprisonment, or even prior
to conviction for an offense punishable by death, reclusion perpetua, or life
imprisonment when evidence of guilt is not strong.

On the other hand, the granting of bail is discretionary: (1) upon conviction by the RTC
of an offense not punishable by death, reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment; or (2) if
the RTC has imposed a penalty of imprisonment exceeding six years, provided none of
the circumstances enumerated under paragraph 3 of Section 5, Rule 114 is present, as
follows:

(a) That he is a recidivist, quasi-recidivist, or habitual delinquent, or has

committed the crime aggravated by the circumstance of reiteration;

(b) That he has previously escaped from legal confinement, evaded sentence, or
violated the conditions of his bail without valid justification;

(c) That he committed the offense while under probation, parole, or conditional
pardon;

(d) That the circumstances of hi s case indicate the probability of flight if released
on bail; or

(e) That there is undue risk that he may commit another crime during the
pendency of the appeal.

ISSUE #2: Whether petitioner is bailable since he is not flight risk.

HELD # 2: YES

The Court is further mindful of the Philippines responsibility in the international

community arising from the national commitment under the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights to:

x x x uphold the fundamental human rights as well as value the worth and dignity
of every person. This commitment is enshrined in Section II, Article II of our
Constitution which provides: "The State values the dignity of every human person
and guarantees full respect for human rights." The Philippines, therefore, has the
responsibility of protecting and promoting the right of every person to liberty and
due process, ensuring that those detained or arrested can participate in the
proceedings before a court, to enable it to decide without delay on the legality of
the detention and order their release if justified. In other words, the Philippine
authorities are under obligation to make available to every person under
detention such remedies which safeguard their fundamental right to liberty. These
remedies include the right to be admitted to bail.
This national commitment to uphold the fundamental human rights as well as value the
worth and dignity of every person has authorized the grant of bail not only to those
charged in criminal proceedings but also to extraditees upon a clear and convincing
showing: (1 ) that the detainee will not be a flight risk or a danger to the community; and
(2 ) that there exist special, humanitarian and compelling circumstances.

In our view, his social and political standing and his having immediately surrendered to
the authorities upon his being charged in court indicate that the risk of his flight or
escape from this jurisdiction is highly unlikely. His personal disposition from the onset of
his indictment for plunder, formal or otherwise, has demonstrated his utter respect for
the legal processes of this country. We also do not ignore that at an earlier time many
years ago when he had been charged with rebellion with murder and multiple frustrated
murder, he already evinced a similar personal disposition of respect for the legal
processes, and was granted bail during the pendency of his trial because he was not
seen as a flight risk. With his solid reputation in both his public and his private lives, his
long years of public service, and historys judgment of him being at stake, he should be
granted bail.

The currently fragile state of Enriles health presents another compelling justification for
his admission to bail, but which the Sandiganbayan did not recognize.

-end-